this is "piers morgan tonight," the next four years, a live town hall special. day one, president obama's second term, can he keep his promises to america on guns after another school shooting today? >> our journey is not complete until all our children from the streets of detroit to the hills of appalachia to the quiet lanes of newtown know that they're cared for and cherished and always safe from harm. >> the economy. >> an economic recovery has begun. america's possibilities are limitless. >> social issues. >> our journey is not complete

until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law. >> tonight an unprecedented gathering on business, politics on both sides of the gun debate. dan rather, mark cuban, grover norquist, a texas gun owner who survived a mass shooting and a couple who stopped a thief with a gun of their own. how would you grade the president for his first four years and what da you want to see in the next four? this is "piers morgan tonight." [ applause ] good evening. our town hall is going in a few minutes but we begin with breaking news on another school shooting. this texas three were wounded and two in custody after a shoot-out that apparently resulted from an altercation at the north harris campus at lone star college. joining us is not an eyewitness, he's an emt student who treated two people who were bleeding. he found out later that one of them was a suspected shooter. a very dramatic day, obviously, at the college today. tell me exactly what happened.

>> well, i actually was coming out of class, and i had knew that there was a lot of commotion going on, but i wasn't really sure what it was. i asked a couple students and they said there were a couple people who were shot. i proceeded to go around the back of the library and i saw two wounded victims. and i just kind of did whatever i was trained to do in my previous medical training and started to treat them to the best i could. and i was treating the facilities person, i was getting him taken care of, and i looked behind me and i saw another gentleman sitting against the building who also needed treatment, so i rushed over to help him. right as we were in the middle of helping him, then they were starting to clear the campus out. and they had asked everyone to please move to the front of the campus.

so we -- you know, a couple of us carried our victims to the front and lo and behold, when we got to the front of the campus, i found out that one of the gentlemen that i was trying to treat wounds on was the suspected shooter. >> tell me, obviously, with all the shootings that have been going on recently and particularly following sandy hook, of course, it must be everyone who is at a college or school's nightmare that they hear gunfire. did you hear the gunfire going off? do you know how many people actually shotguns? because there are various reports that it was one shooter, two shooters and so on. >> i personally did not hear the gunshots. i did hear some gunshots later as i was moving away from the scene. they were off in the distance. but as far as the gunshots go, i actually did not hear them. i was told by another student who had saw me, he indicated that i had arrived at about

approximately 1, 1 1/2 minutes after the shooting had occurred. so i actually did not hear it. the latest report was saying that there were three wounded and one of those three being the suspected shooter. >> right. we believe there's a fourth who had a heart attack. the final question just briefly, if you could. my understanding is you have armed police specifically employed at the school and also civilian security, but they're not armed, is that correct? >> i think some of them are. they do have a police substation right there on campus, i do believe. but i do not believe -- i don't think the security guys are armed. >> no, i think there are armed police but the security guards are unarmed. mark zaragoza, obviously terrifying day for you. congratulations on the work you did to help there because it must have been a really dramatic scene. you must have had your heart racing as well. thank you for joining me. >> thank you. >> i want to turn now to our version of town hall, a big

conversation about the big issues president obama will have to tack until the next four years which of course includes guns in america. tell us what you want to see from the president in his second term. send questions to me use our # pmtnext4. i'll ask you to grade the president on the next four years. joining me is a very stellar panel. dan rather, grover norquist, dallas mavericks owner mark cuban, kelly ann conway, frank rooney from "the new york times." plus the newest member of our cnn family jake tapper, anchor and chief washington correspondent. welcome to you all. jake tapper, first of all, welcome to the cnn family. as i think wolf blitzer told you earlier, you just have to work hard, keep your nose clean and let wolf deal with the work. that's what i tend to do.

a fascinating day in many ways in washington as they have been a lot recently. the president seemed to me to be a man who realizes he probably hasn't achieved enough to guarantee his legacy whatever he sees that to be. he looked pretty determined, pretty up for a fight and laid out a radical plan as many are seeing that has been much more liberal than in the past. as if to say, right, this is me and i'm going to go for it. what was your reading of it? >> i think we have a different tone from president obama than we have in the past. there's an evolution of what he said in the democratic convention where he talked about there are no blue states, no red states, just the united states. a more assertive, bolder, if you will, version of that, except he is pushing forward asking for his vision, asking for a more

progressive agenda talking about climate change even though he hasn't really been active in that much at all during his first term. talking about gun control, which is also something he's not pushed for. so i do think absolutely -- i wouldn't call it veering to the left. it's probably more with the confidence that comes from his first term he's pushing for the things that he cares about and has always cared about but hasn't had the political will or desire to act upon until now. >> dan rather, the big problem for the president, as it has been in the first four years, is getting this stuff through a republican-led house. and they've already made it clear, look, you can try, but we're going to fight you every step of the way. how successful can he be with the kind of quite ambitious plans that he laid out yesterday for what he wants to achieve? >> as we sit here tonight, i think it's limited what he can achieve. that's why he has to pick his shots very, very carefully. that the opposition party has chosen to be an obstructionist party. they read the election results and they'll make nice on some things.

but it will be very tough going for him. not to say it is impossible, but don't try to do too many things. president clinton who in many ways was a very effective president, he loved to undertake 75 or 80 things on at once. president obama can't do that. his number one priorities have to be peace, world peace, of course, number one, and number two take what is happening now with the economy and move it forward. jobs, jobs, jobs. and his number three problem is he faces a staunchly obstructionist party in opposition. i would expect him to concentrate on trying to get his health reform package, otherwise known as obama care, sort of put in concrete. it's still vulnerable in places. and tweak it. i'll be very surprised if he doesn't make that if not his first priority, his number one legislative priority. >> grover norquist, do you have your battering rams ready for the president?

the debt ceiling bustup to come. the republicans making clear they'll fight him all the way on that. i get a sense the president can be as bold and audacious as he wants in this inaugural speech yesterday but you guys aren't going to let him get away with very much. >> he has two problems. one is the republicans won the house of representatives. boehner was elected leader of the house as much as the president was elected to run the executive branch. so he can't pass something through congress without getting a republican house. he has another problem, that's a democratic senate. 20 democrats are up for re-election in 2014. they're not as left wing as he is. they certainly didn't get elected in states as democrat and blue as obama did. so he's asking those guys to go out in front on his tax policies, his spending policies. remember, he just signed to make permanent 85% of the bush tax cuts in dollar terms, 99% of the bush tax cuts in terms of who was affected. these are tax cuts the

democratic party has run against for 12 years as a bad idea from start to finish. so the republicans made a hundred steps forward and took back either one or 15 steps and then obama locked it in. why? largely because democrats in the senate did not want to be attached to the size of tax increases that the president wanted. so he has a democrat senate that's not as left wing as he is. reid may be, but reid has to take care of his own. and a republican house elected every bit as much as he was. >> let me bring jake back. you got an update from the white house about this. >> well, just what his next hundred days will look like. obviously he's talked about trying to combat gun violence and we'll see efforts legislatively right off the bat on that. also, of course, immigration reform. the president has talked about how he wants to tackle that early on in his second term. so immigration reform. that is an area that grover can talk about at length where republicans there is an area of compromise for bipartisan consensus. i also would expect, of course,

some of the budgetary issues, of course, will be forced upon him because of the forced spending cuts, the so-called sequester being pushed back. then something else he spoke about on election night itself which we can probably expect to see in the first 100 days or so, and that's election reform. making it easier for people to vote, not harder. those are the items i see coming down the pike immediately. there are some areas where there should be bipartisan cooperation. some there will be some pretty difficult fights. >> mark cuban, you're a very successful american businessman, sports lover, sports owner and so on. what do you make of all this? a country $16 trillion in debt. america is hurting economically. and despite president obama's best efforts in the first four years, it's still hurting. a lot of people suffering. do you like the tenor of what you're hearing from him for his second term or is it fiddling while rome burns?

>> first of all, i don't think america's in bad shape at all. >> explain to a layman why that is. i hear a lot of business people say that right now. how can a country that's so riddled with debt actually not be in bad shape. >> first of all, when we talk about debt, everyone likes to compare it to households. it is not the same. a sovereign debt is not the same as debt i might have or any of us might have as individuals. we can't print money. the country can. we don't have a central bank. the country does. so it's not even apples to apples, but you know, this is an entrepreneurial country. and you know, i have investments in more than 70 companies. and not one time as a conversation about the national deficit ever come up. not one time did the fiscal cliff ever come up. not one time even did tax rates ever come up. you know, the business of america is business. and we go to work. and i don't think any of these other elements really impact all but the biggest multinational

companies. and so when you talk about where are we with 8% unemployment, i don't think it's really a reflection of what the president's done. it's a reflection of how the world is changing in terms of technology. there are those of us who run the computers and those of us who are told what to do by the computers. that's changing how work is being done. >> that is a valid point. you look at a company like apple, for example. most of their business in terms of jobs is outsourced now to china and places like that. china brings some back, but it makes little economic sense for them to do so in a globalized market. i have an idea about that, but it's a valid point that the nature of business in america has changed and you need less people for what you're trying to do now. what is the answer to that? >> perhaps that's true, but if you are one of the 8% that are unemployed and are actively seeking employment, you feel it. these are not just statistics. itses a real. if you are in poverty which has increased not decreased under president obama's watch, you

feel it. if you are one of the americans who lack health insurance under president obama's first four years, you feel it. these are statistics for successful people to dismiss. let me just say i think that both republicans and democrats have missed a tremendous opportunity in the messaging on the economy. republicans have just talked about job creators, they talk about entrepreneurs. and they own that space a little bit. the president talks about, you know, having the wealthy pay their fair share and whatnot and ignores the debt in his inaugural speech yesterday. but most americans right now, most american households are neither job seekers nor job creators, they're job holders. and they don't fear losing their job or even replacing a lost job, but what they're saying now which is different than your father or grandfather is that the job is no longer enough. it's that life in america seems to be increasingly unaffordable. people say i have a job, my household has two or three jobs and we still can't make it.

i think the republicans should take the opportunity to explain to them what it is -- why it is they can't make it on their jobs. >> a narrative that has been wrong perhaps on both sides. is that a valid point to make? >> i think it's a valid point to make. i want to say when we talk about what he can or can't do in the next four years there's a lot of focus on who control the senate and the house and the legislative reality. one thing the president learned from his first term is he can use the bully pulpit better than he has. there are the houses of congress and then there's the court of public opinion. what's doable often ends up to be a matter of what you can do in the court of public opinion. he's gotten much better even in recent weeks and months at sticking to a message, at choosing a message. he's been good on the debt ceiling talking about we're not authorizing spending, we're making good on the bills we already owe. so i think we should keep an eye on that for the next four years and see whether that opens up the realm of possibility for him. >> excuse me, this is such a

strong point because it sort of got lost in coverage of the inauguration day. the forming of this group called organizing for action is an effort by the obama people, the president and his people, to bring what they learned during the campaign, to support him with the so-called bully pulpit of public opinion. if they're able to do that half as well as they did in the campaign -- >> you saw with the fiscal cliff they were feeling the heat. let's take a break. and come back and talk about guns and gun control. i'll try to keep my voice which i think ironically i got flu after dr. oz gave me a flu jab on this very show. i'll have a word with him later. we'll be back after the break. ♪ if loving you is wrong

♪ i don't wanna be right [ record scratch ] what?! it's not bad for you. it just tastes that way. [ female announcer ] honey nut cheerios cereal -- heart-healthy, whole grain oats. you can't go wrong loving it.

our journey is not complete until all of children, from the streets of detroit, to the hills of appalachia, to the quiet lanes of newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm. >> safe from harm. and that means safe from guns. president obama is asking is congress to approve his sweeping gun control plan. but can it pass? let's go back to jake tapper. i understand the president will be meeting with some members this week. >> that's right. he'll be reaching out to members of congress. this is a big part of this campaign for gun violence because he has a narrow margin of support among the public for his proposals. in a gallup poll from january 17th asked would you tell your congressman to vote for

president obama's proposals to reduce gun violence? yes, 53%, no 41%. but here's what's really interesting about these polling numbers and this is why president obama is going to take his show on the road and have more of that campaigning that he did in 2012. support for gun measures, for gun control measures has declined precipitously since the shooting. in december, for instance, 78% support for gun registration, it's now 69%. those numbers are going down as we typically see after a horrific event like this, there's a big spike for gun control measure, then that goes down. president obama going to try to stop that and turn it around. >> let's bring in people who have views from different perspectives. suzanna hupp was someone who was a victim at luby's cafeteria in texas in 1991. it was the worst shooting before virginia tech, that america had seen. she had a handgun that was in her car at the time. welcome to you. what is your view of whether the

gun control debate is. as jake tapper just said, it does tend to be this huge spike in the polls of people in america say we've got to do something, then it calms down, people go back to normal. then it goes on. what do you think? >> i think there's a normal reaction, especially among us parents. you want to do something. something that will prevent something like this happening in the future. i just take a very different view of it. i look at it and wonder how can anybody know see that these things only happen where guns aren't allowed? that seems so crystal clear to me, that we've created these killing zones that we call gun-free zones. and it makes me very uncomfortable to have my children in them. >> did you know how many of the last 60 mass shootings have been in gun-free zones? >> if i had to sit and count, i can tell you almost all of them. >> actually, it's not the case. in today you've got kids with

handguns, students in a school, armed police everywhere. plenty of guns in that school. >> do we know that you said ds? because my understanding was they weren't children. >> well, students. >> i mean, i just want to make it clear. because i hear a lot about kids killing kids. when i actually sit and look at the statistical evidence they're including 21-year-olds and it's usually gang-related violence. it's one gang member killing another over drug-related incidents. >> do you go along with this idea that you should arm almost everybody, at schools, movie theaters? >> no. >> where do you draw the line? >> no. no, all i'm saying is anybody who is -- basically anybody who can vote. so we're talking about people who are of age who have no felony convictions, who have never been adjudicated mentally incompetent can carry a gun if they choose. the fact is when you look at it statistically only 2% of the population choose to do that. i just --

>> let me give you a statistic there. here's where i just find it really hard to understand the statistical evidence. america has over 300 million guns in circulation. and you have 11,000 and 12,000 gun homicides a year, 18,000 americans kill themselves with guns every year, 100,000 americans are hit by gunfire every year. this exceeds other countries. >> sure, because we do have more guns. >> but why would your answer to bringing down that statistic which presumably we all want to do, why would the answer be more guns? >> let me answer your question. >> hang on. >> let me answer your question. but you started with one question. let me answer it. >> let me finish my point here. >> you're talking about people kill themselves with guns. >> let me finish my point, please. >> it's your show. >> if you concede that the reason for that is, as you said, you have more guns, why would the way to bring down those numbers be to have even more guns?

>> you are not going to bring down suicide numbers by having less guns. >> that's a complete lie. that's a -- i'm sorry. you can't say things like that. in countries like australia, where they brought in strict gun control. the suicide rate involving guns plummeted. >> well, suicide rate involving guns, yes. but not suicides. so you're making -- here's an example for you -- >> again, i say to you, suzanna, that that is actually wrong. >> you brought me on the show, let me make a point. >> finish what you wanted to say. >> there was a great article. a very short article shortly after my parents were killed, there was an article in the paper about a brother killing his own brother with a christmas tree stand. he had beaten his brother to death with a christmas tree stand. crimes of passion have happened since caesar's day, right? but you know what? if there had been a gun sitting next to the christmas tree stand, he would have picked up a gun and it would be in your

statistics now. the brother is no less dead but the gun is granted a more efficient tool. it is something that puts me on equal footing with gang members. it's something that puts your granny in a wheelchair on equal footing with the thugs trying to steal her social security check. >> well, there's a lot of people in this room that find what you're saying -- >> i can't hear them. >> well, a lot of people are laughing and probably wish you could hear them. but let's move on. let's move to paul and to heidi. >> look -- piers, i've been there. >> suzanna, if i may move on. paul you pulled out a shotgun to defend your girlfriend. it was actually a burglar attempting to steal a television set from one of your neighbor's homes. and we watched the videos, a famous bit of video where you went out, you took your gun and you got this guy apprehended without actually shooting anybody.

and you used the threat of that weapon. it was a shotgun, i think. >> yes, sir. >> to me when i saw that, people sent me tweets saying there's the evidence, that's why you've got to be armed. i have never had any problem with what you did, never had a problem with americans' right to defend their home with a pistol, a shotgun. i get that. that's the second amendment. do you believe in anything more? do you need to have an assault weapon, an ar-15 military style rifle or do you believe that you were armed enough to do what you did, to defend yourself and your property and your family? >> yes, in this particular case, yes. we live in a very small area. we have lots of units connected to us. i don't need a 223 rifle that could maybe miss somebody and go four houses down. in this particular case, this is exactly what i bought it for, is home defense. my girlfriend's been terrorized by this particular gentleman for the last month.

and this time i was home, she let me know, and thankfully he chose the right choice for him and for my conscience as well. >> when you hear about the debate and you hear about the lady i just interviewed making the kind of remarks that cause the room to erupt with sort of appalled laughter, let's not beat around the bush here, there's clearly a clash of cultures even within the american culture about this. how do we get through it? >> you know, that's a tough question. i know in my home state where i live now in texas, texas and guns, guns are interwoven with their history and one of the first things i did when i moved to san antonio was i went to the alamo and it gave me chills when i walked in there and saw all the different flags that were represented and saw, of course, the famous come and get it. and i guess it's one of those

things that texas has a lot of pride, and i can understand why they have it. guns are a part of it. and heidi and i are both very, very proud to be living in texas, but you know, it's not something that, you know, we like to show everybody. it's only in a very specific -- >> no, i totally respect that. let's take a break and ask my panel about the big gun debate. i'm sure you've all got different views on this, but it is to me one of the most important debates in america right now. [ woman ] ring. ring. progresso. your soups are so awesomely delicious my husband and i can't stop eating 'em! what's...that... on your head? can curlers! tomato basil, potato with bacon... we've got a lot of empty cans. [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup.

by now one of the most sensitive topics in america, guns, dan rather, grover norquist, mark cuban and suzanne hupp. dan has offered to lip sync for me if my voice continues to deteriorate. grover, let me start with you. you're a board member of the nra, which i don't think many people know. >> we have 76 board members. >> but you're a board member of the nra. >> yeah, mm-hmm. >> what is your view of the gun debate right now. and where can you see some kind of consensus? >> a member of the national rifle association at the very beginning said we ought to include people who have been adjudicated as mentally unstable in the national -- in the list of people who can't get guns. that was stopped by ted kennedy

because the lobbyists didn't want that to happen. about half the states don't really get that information into the national check and get those in. if obama really considered this an important issue, he might have done something about it when he had a democratic house and a democratic senate. all this talk about republican obstructionism, the republicans had a majority of the house the last two years. the first two years of his presidency, he could have done immigration, didn't. could have passed something on gun control, didn't. >> do you own a gun? >> yes. >> what do you have? >> a shotgun. i live in d.c. it's extremely difficult. took nine months. >> who on the panel owns a gun? dan does? kelly, frank? so you two have guns. i repeat, i have no problem with the self-defense element of this. do you believe -- and i've had lots of gun rights people on the show of varying degrees of intellect i guess about this debate. some choose to abuse me. others i found out she had good

arguments. do you believe there's compelling elements that an assaults weapons ban if it removed the loopholes would have no effect, zero effect? >> the government studies, the justice department studies about the previous gun ban said it had no effect. we actually have some social science on it. >> it was riddled with loopholes. when you see as has happened the last five shootings in america all involving an ar-15 style military assault rifle. that's what they are. they are almost the same as an m-16. when you see that happen, do you not think there's a compelling argument to say civilians don't need these things and if it means that crazy people are going to get their hands on them easily, go to walmart or whatever they do, it's just time to take a humane action and remove them. i'd love the nra to say something like that and say not the handguns, not this, but those. those killing machines we agree don't belong.

>> those are the exact same weapons as a hunting rifle. >> they're not. >> yes, they are. they're exactly the same as hunting rifles and they put little goo guys on them. >> my grandfather's shotgun is the gun that i own. this is one of those things. we have a cultural divide about a lot of things in this country. big country, 320 million people, multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious. the good book says let us come reasoned together. that's what we need to do in the gun business. the wide divergence of opinion. but with an assault rifle, with all due respect, i disagree with grover. but an assault weapon, there's no excuse to have an assault weapon. and if president obama wants to get serious, and i think he does about this, he's going to be limited to what he can pass. but some limit on assault rifles and some limit on the extreme magazine capacity that can go into those.

>> nobody needs a 100-bullet magazine. >> let me start. >> the nra could just say, we agree. go hunting with a hundred bullets in a magazine, blow a deer to smithereens. that's not sport, that's not hunting. what do you need them for? you don't need them to defend yourself. you don't need to spray people to steal a television set. this is where the nra miss a trick in the big debate. this is obvious. bishop nikkieli demone. you're one of the member of the march on washington for gun control in washington on sunday. you have a personal interest. >> thanks for having me here. i'm bishop nikkieli demone. this takes a personal turn for me because my father shortly after i was born was shot to death in a case of mistaken identity. >> and you were shot, too? >> i was not shot. i was not shot. my father was.

my father was. i never got to know him. that's one. as a bishop and as an actor, in both instances, i've presided over funerals of children who have killed other children, 18 to age 13. the 13-year-old was just sitting on his front porch reading a book and was just hit by being in the right place -- >> so what is the answer? >> what is the answer? i agree with you, dan rather, and i agree with you. there is no need to have these high-powered assault weapons. there is no need for regular citizens to walk around with weapons that would decimate a body just by the bullet entering. bullets that shatter upon impact? there's no need. >> mark cuban, you're a texan, you don't own a gun. quite unusual in texas, and i mean that in a respectful way. there are a lot of gun owners there.

>> i have no problem if you have guns in your home. that's your choice to protect yourself. we have armed guards in my house because of all the crazies. if you're register and you own a gun, you need to be registered and pass tests. i'm a believer in the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. we ought to make them fill out forms, pass test, then give them a white hat. no one will mess with a good guy with a gun with a white hat in public. seriously. it's absolutely ridiculous to take a gun out in public because you think you might protect yourself. like the shooting today when someone just decides they're going to attack back because someone got them mad, you can't take that risk. don't people watch "die hard" movies? >> what many americans don't realize is many countries around the world have brought in tough gun control, japan, australia, britain and others and the statistics for gun murder and for gun suicide dramatically come down -- it's just a fact.

>> part of the problem is that everybody looks at the statistics and here's the cause and here's the effect. that doesn't work. to dan's point, you have to make a decision about what you want to be as a country and where you want to go. if it's 3 million guns and we get down to 299 million guns next year, that's a right step. >> about taking steps. we'll come back and talk about social issues. barack obama mentioned the word "gay" in his inaugural address. wow, what a shocker. ?x

so it's a bit of fun, really. at the top of the show i'll ask my studio audience who i will say are pretty skewed to democrats and independents. not many republicans in the house tonight. grover who i think speaks for thousands of them anyway. i just asked them all to put a grade up on how the president's doing, if he was back at college, a, b, c, d or f. and here are the results. i've got them here, actually. as, 13, bs, 32, cs, 10, ds 1, f 3. even where a democrat-skewed audience thinks, you know what? he can do better. it's probably one of the overriding themes. frank one of the things i think he did do better was break this taboo subject of mentioning the word "gay." it's never been done before. it looks like he's decided right.

this is about equality. actually until we have complete equality, it's not equality. >> my suspicion is that he's been almost always here, but now he doesn't have to worry about re-election in four years. the inaugural remarks were what, 18 minutes, he used the word "gay" once which had never happened before in inaugural remarks and the stonewall, it was a gay bar that was raided in 1969 and became an emblem of police harassing gay people. to mention stonewall, along with selma, put it with the civil rights movement and a gay bar raided by police. this says a lot about where his values are right now on this issue. and it speaks volumes about where the country's moved. >> he also mentioned women's equality as well, women's rights. what is wrong with an america, a

modern america taking a basic standpoint that all men and women should be equal, whether it's the amount they're paid for the same job, their sexuality, the color of their skin. i like the way the president brought it all together and said, you know something? actually, equality should mean that -- equality. >> he did sort of say that, but the one word he never said yesterday, piers, was gun or guns and we ought to put that on the record. there's a great reason he didn't say that, i guess the same reason he never bothered to revive the assault weapons ban -- >> i'm talking about guns all night, as you know. >> talking about president obama in his second term. let's be fair about his first term. >> do you have any exception to him wanting to apparently categorize as joe biden who jumped in before him about genuine equality for anyone who's gay and that involves if they want to get married in america, they want to get married. >> when the president says half the things he says, i'm not sure what he means by them. for me to characterize cryptic remarks in an inaugural address. if you're asking me how i feel i

think that america has as its goal equality and also fairness. when you ask people, jake tapper, and welcome to cnn, jake, had those poll numbers about do you want your member of congress to vote for president obama's efforts to reduce gun violence, you get one answer. when you ask do you want the government to ban certain things, you get quite another answer. and that's because we have a sense of not just of equality in the country but fairness. >> you've been laughing here. what's amusing here? >> what's amusing to me is we're making such a big deal about it. we all live our lives, right? i think on a day-to-day basis, we accept the people around us. we have to go to work, we have to shop, we go to the gym, wherever. the fact that we're making a big deal about the president using the word "gay" is crazy. that is absolutely crazy. >> there's a big deal to be made here which is that only in nine states can i get married. you can get married in all the states. >> i'm not saying there's not stupidly. >> that's a big deal.

not just about him using gay in his inaugural remarks, this is about him saying on that issue, that's not fair, that's not equal rights. >> imagine how it would be -- imagine how it would be if actually you could be a black man or woman in america and only have your rights recognized in a number of states. people would find that ridiculous. >> we got defense of marriage act as a federal law from president bill clinton. and it was passed with bipartisan support. >> many, many years ago. a seatide of public opinion ago. >> we're talking about things that the audience in america may not know. i think it's important for people to understand that this started with president bill clinton. he as president thought it was such a big priority he passed the defense of marriage, defense of traditional non-gay marriage that we have as a federal law. >> it's a shameful thing, and he needs to say more about having done that, but he has since come out in favor of same-sex marriage. >> very recently. >> it was a big profound moment, i thought. >> doesn't that bother you?

>> it bothers me. >> i read it. it was a very good column. he said exactly what you've been saying. so you shouldn't be quibbling about that. >> we're not. >> let's take a break and talk about another contentious issue, climate change. do you think it exists or not? [ indistinct shouting ] ♪ [ indistinct shouting ] [ male announcer ] time and sales data.

split-second stats. [ indistinct shouting ] ♪ it's so close to the options floor... [ indistinct shouting, bell dinging ] ...you'll bust your brain box. ♪ all on thinkorswim from td ameritrade. ♪

president obama is putting extreme weather on his agenda and he says america has to lead the way to fight it. cnn severe weather expert chad myers is here along with my

all-star panel. sum up your view about the climate change debate. the weather is getting more extreme. it's certainly heating up. but does that mean the climate is changing scientifically? >> not climate so to speak. but the weather day to day seems to be changing. and if you average that over long term, yeah, that's climate. that's what it means. here are the facts. we'll go from 1880 at about 285 parts per million in carbon dioxide up to 390 where we are now. that's a fact. we know that, kaen dioxide holds in heat. that's a fact. we do know, though, volcanoes can put carbon dioxide in. not much but they can. also, foreest fires can put carbon dioxide in. those are the natural ways. some other ways which we've been doing a lot of for the past 80 or so years, burning fossil fuels. we also can get some making cement co 2 as well and one thing you're not against,

fermentation can cause co-2 as well. >> the global warming debate, my view is quite simple. it may be wrong. perhaps it isn't a big issue. but why take the risk? why am i taking a risk with my kids and their kid's lives? >> that's a very good question. one thing clearly. the climate has changed dramatically over the last few years. we can debate what causes this change. such things as the tremendous melting of the arctic ice. we can debate what's causing it. we can debate what the solutions are. go fast, go slow. if may say, think the republican party's hurt itself a lot by saying this is a fact. the climate has changed. now, let's have a debate about what's causing that and what the solution is. >> what do you say? >> 1970s, we had global cooling. the same scientists told us we were having global cooling. in both case, they wanted us to tax energy.

that i think is a danger. they prejudge the science. >> let's go to a very successful guy, lives in a big guzzling state of texas. what is your view, global warming? >> i have no idea. >> good for you. >> i like that answer. that is a refreshing answer. >> i look at it honestly and say from 1880 to 2013, that might not be a big enough sample, you know? who knows how many years, you know, forever's a long time and it's really hard to gauge. >> seems to me the bulk of evidence supports climate change and if the climate is changing the implications of that are so profound. >> the way we pollute our earth cannot be healthy for it. >> no. >> okay, we'll be right back.